Per Smt.S.P.Lale, Hon’ble Member: This appeal has been filed by the complainant against order of rejection of delay condonation application passed by the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Central Mumbai in consumer complaint no.02/2010 on 26/04/2010. The case of the complainant in the Forum below was that opponent had issued vide its letter dated 09/03/2000, 700 share warrants to the complainant in the year 1997. Opp.party further asked the complainant to pay an amount of Rs.78,750/- (call money) together with interest @18% from 01/12/997 till the date of payment. However, the complainant had not paid the said amount to the opp.party. Complainant further stated that SEBI had banned listing of the shares of the opp.party-company. However, complainant has failed to file any document in this respect. The complainant had been continuously writing to the opp.party, BSE, SEBI, Department of Company Affairs, Registrar of the companies, Ministry of Finance and Economic Offence Wing etc since 2004. From February-2007 the complainant also started making the correspondence till filing of the complaint to the said authorities. In the delay condonation application dated 08/01/2010 the complainant had not mentioned quantum of the delay. We heard appellant in person. None is present for respondent. Complainant had not satisfactorily explained as to how much delay was there in filing the complaint and what are the causes for filing the complaint so belatedly. Merely making the complaint to the different authorities such as Ministry for Company Affairs, SEBI cannot be the ground for condoning the delay for the complaint which is filed in the year 201, when cause of action for filing the complaint accrued in the year 1997. Therefore, the Forum below had rightly rejected the delay condonation application as per provision of Section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As per the said Act the complainant himself must make out the sufficient cause for filing the complaint beyond two years. Therefore, order passed by the Forum below is sustainable in law. We are finding no substance in the appeal filed by the complainant. As, such we pass the following order:- :-ORDER-: 1. Appeal stands rejected. 2. Parties are left to bear their own costs. 3. Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties as per rule. | 
